Seizures versus Demons: a response to “Concerned”

My wife (Stephanie S. Sawyer) has written much about  her experiences with epilepsy, including her first of two books, “Facing Me”.She has been a persistant and effective advocate for those afflicted with this disorder, and nationally recognized for “Making a Difference” in this cause.

She recently posted an article about one of her experiences with epilepsy in the church. That article is on SQUIDOO.COM, and is titled “Seizures versus Demon Possession: The Church’s Mistake”

She received this response from “Concerned”

Concerned wrote

if you will not accept or admit that you have a demon (seizure) you will not be delivered from these attacks.

My response was too lengthy for the format there, so I am posting it here, with a link from her site.

The following is my full response:

==============

Well, my better judgment is usually to “not feed the trolls”, and “Concerned” has those trollish earmarks: hiding behind anonymity, and short, unreasoned attack with no coherent support given. However, this comment pulls me to respond for several reasons:

 The first is charitable, I am going to do as my mother would have it, and assume that “concerned” is not a troll, but simply ignorant about both Christianity, and about epilepsy.

A second reason is that as Ms. Sawyer’s husband, I am a bit un-accepting of those who assert that my wife is demon-possessed.  You may think that is a bit hyper-sensitive of me, but there it is.

The third reason for injecting myself now is that, while I am generally tolerant of folks saying things that they haven’t thought through, and thus looking pretty foolish (after all, where would I be if folks treated me strictly on that score!), “Concerned” writes with the seeming assurance of “thus sayeth the Lord” He or she seems to give the impression that this particular destructive foolishness is direct from God, or is at least sanctioned by His word, or is a natural conclusion of Christian thought. A man may make himself look a fool without raising my ire, or even my care; but I will not abide him making my Lord out to be an idiot.

My final and most compelling reason to respond is that “Concerned” so perfectly illustrates the issue I had with the Rev. R.’s sermon, which Stephanie referenced. That concern is that in his remarks, which I believe he meant innocently enough, there was unintentional fuel for those such as “Concerned,” who are concerned enough to tell other people that they had a demon, but yet not concerned enough to understand them, or indeed, not concerned enough to read their Bible.

I must ask your indulgence; because I wish to address these issues here. I will not organize my thoughts be the number, but just jumbled together.

First, since “Concerned”  presents as a supposed Christian, the bulk of my comments will be as between those of the same house; I will engage from a perspective of Christian thought. If anyone is bothered of confused by my tone or substance, I will be happy to answer or engage on any of these points, either here, or on my own blog, at www.rericsawyer.wordpress.com.

 

Concerned wrote

if you will not accept or admit that you have a demon (seizure) you will not be delivered from these attacks

If taken seriously, remarks like this are extremely destructive. To be told that one is of the devil, and is acting under the power of the evil one is nearly the most horrific thing one can hear, assuming that one believes that such things are possible. I do. No one can rightly gauge the devastating rejection in those words unless they have heard them, while in a vulnerable emotional state, from someone they should be able to trust. I would not have believed that people could say that to a person with epilepsy had I not been present when my wife was told it, if I had not seen the pain as she related other times, once from a pastor (not the Rev. R), once from “well-meaning friends” and from a supposed “prayer ministry” It’s enough to make any sane person, anyone of even remotely sound emotional health run from such “ministers” or indeed, from Christianity at all, and that is the tragedy. By failing to read, by failing to understand what God has given us, we put lies in His mouth; By saying such things, we put blasphemies into the mouth of God, and claim them as His own. We destroy the saints for whom He died. As Jesus said about those who set such stumbling blocks, it would be better for them if a millstone were tied around their neck, and they were thrown into the sea. That seems a little harsh, even to me, but then, I’m not the one who said it.

 “Concerned” may answer that although the diagnosis sound cruel, the truth is the essential thing if one wants relief. Well then, is it true? After all, I’ve already admitted to the reality of demonic activity. If that is the cause of these seizures, there is nothing to be gained by denying it, even though it seems more affirming. There are three obvious Scriptural issues. I won’t cite chapter and verse, they are all obvious, and it may do some good for those concerned enough to look them up.

 The first is found in St. Paul’s own struggle. He himself (ok, 2^nd Corinthians) was “buffeted by a messenger from Satan”, a “thorn in the flesh”.  Even though this thorn was specifically called a messenger from Satan, it was never the less from God, and it was to God that Paul directed his request for relief. That request was denied. God’s purpose for Paul was enhanced by the existence of this thorn, and in Paul learning to bear it. Whatever it was, ultimately it was from God; and as Paul later wrote in Romans, “all things work together for good…”

 Aside from the obvious issue that a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God cannot be possessed  by a demon (for how can a demon posses the temple of the Holy Spirit?), we have the idea that all things ultimately come from God, or are allowed by Him, and thus all things serve Him, either as His partners, or as His tools. Remember the story in the gospel of the “Man born blind” The disciples were concerned that Jesus understand how very wise and perceptive they were; and so they said “was it this man’s sin, or his parent’s sin” that resulted in his blindness? After all, every bad thing must have a root in evil, and since the sufferer is the one who gathers that evil fruit, then evil must lie with him, or at the least,  lie in him from his evil parents. “Concerned” also has perceived that the evil of epilepsy must, for the sake of justice, arise from evil. With charity, he does not attribute that evil to my wife directly, but to an evil presence controlling her. It must be so. He is very perceptive and concerned. After all, Jesus did respond to their wise and concerned question. What did Jesus say about what caused this man’s blindness? He said “neither.”

 This man’s condition was for the glory of God.

St. Paul’s thorn was for the glory of God.

Mrs. Sawyer’s epilepsy is for the glory of God; and I have seen it work so.

In weakness, I have seen strength. From pain, I have seen sensitivity and love for the afflicted grow (so much more helpful is love and sensitivity than simple concern!),

 All evil of course has a root in our common fall, and thus has something of the serpent in it. But the heart of the Gospel is not “casting out,” it is “redeeming” and thus, when any evil befall us, even if it is by a “messenger of Satan”, God is the one who rips the weapon from the hand of His enemy, and turns it round for His victory, He is the true master. The chief example being our enemy’s seeming triumph, for a moment only, at Calvary, when God turned betrayal, defeat and death into the centerpiece of His eternal plan, and the means of our redemption.

 Remember also, and with care, Job. Job was tormented, not for his unrighteousness, but for his righteousness. Job’s friends had all the easy answers, ‘it MUST be because of your sin!’ Job was confused. He did not understand, and he accused God. But in the end, God said that only Job had spoken rightly, and that his friends were false. His friends were “concerned” but all they had to offer were empty and easy platitudes that made the situation worse.

 Concerned presents himself as light into a dark place. I think it is a masquerade, and that he brings not light, but deeper darkness. His masquerading as a angel of light has been done before, and always to the purpose of bringing despair, and accusation. He calls the temple of the Holy Spirit the abode of demons. Such blasphemy has been heard before, and the warning of Jesus was very stern: “All manor of sin will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven…” from Matthew 12.

 Finally, at the beginning I listed the most compelling reason for this long invective was that it so well illustrated the complaint against the sermon of the Rev. R, which prompted the original post.  It is my belief, having heard the sermon, and having exchanged somewhat heated letters with Rev. R, and speaking with him about this matter on two occasions to a conclusion that affirmed our common bond in Christ, that he does NOT share the views of “concerned” and that he would, in fact, find them reprehensible.  I think he meant well but had not encountered people like “concerned” at least in a way that burned into his consciousness. I think he is a good man, and a good priest,  but out of his depth on this issue. My complaint to him is that he brought up the similarity between the symptoms described in the healing portrayed in the Gospel for that day, and the sometimes appearance of epilepsy. He did this without speaking to the devastatingly harmful, and blasphemously wrong opinions of people like “Concerned”;

And by that failure, unintentionally lent them support from the pulpit. He was not wrong, but he is (at least in my opinion, which I have shared with him) responsible for the false use which may be made of things which he says, and should guard his words, or explain them so as to deny support for this evil.

“Concerned” demonstrates that it still exists.

 

R. Eric Sawyer

Interesting post on another blog:

Peter Lopez has a very interesting discussion going on his blog at Beauty of the Bible on the relationship between the exercise of Charismatic Gifts and the study of Theology.

Christian devotes of both camps have a tendency to distrust the other sphere, which I think is a shame. God is One. Those who have hold of His right hand may perhaps be understood for thinking that others (holding His left hand) have everything backwards, but they are not excused for thinking so. God is God, truth is truth however God reveals it to us.

We discard any of it to our loss, and at our peril.

Predation and a Good God?

There is a particular fact about the known life forms in this universe that I find very distressing in view of my assertion that there is a creator God, who is Good.  I don’t know if it is currently in fashion in atheist circles or not, but it has always appeared to me a pretty strong point for their side. That point may be summarized thusly:

 If creation is at heart “good” why is it that all animal life, and even some plant life, lives only by the destruction of other life?  Even herbivores and “vegans” consume, digest and destroy other living things, harvesting that which they did not make and killing the maker in the process. Once we have left the plants with chlorophyll, and the relatively few organisms that power their chemical processes with thermal or chemical energy, it is constant predation from there on up. Nowhere above that level is there an organism that does not destroy life. The exception would be the scavengers, from worms to vultures, who consume their prey after some other force has killed it, but even they are fueled by, and depend upon, death.

 I can hear the snickers, not only am I objecting to eating meat, I’m exhibiting scruples about eating grass! But the issue is not whether plants can be eaten (I am strictly an omnivore!), it is that the pattern of life subsisting only by the death of other life is poetically very depressing. It is so close to a universal pattern, how can we say a “Good God” dreamed it up?  I have heard some Christians attribute it to “the fall”, saying that in the beginning it was not so, and in the fullness of the Kingdom of God, it will not be so again. “The lion shall lay down with the lamb” and that the lion will eat straw, as the prophet says.

Leaving the issue of grass as life destroyed by both lion and lamb in that vision, I am not satisfied. I am not placated by just saying that someday the problem will disappear, that it means nothing.

 Anyway, this state of affairs seems to me so ugly that it argues against the idea that any benign entity is behind it.

 I have said elsewhere that one of the ways to know if a new idea is true is to see what effect it has on old knowledge. Does it fit what is already known? even better, Does it throw light on what is already known, and draw isolated facts into a pattern?

 As a Christian, I claim that the central point of all history, of all creation, is the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. I also claim that creation has been corrupted, and that many things we now see are twisted copies of the truth.

What then is this center point, and how could it relate to predation being a nearly universal feature of life; what could that universal feature be, of which predation is the twisted image?

I think there is a link, the true life principal of which the Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross is the archetype, and predation is the twisted echetype. The principal is that of vicarious life. Jesus died so that I might live. Even as a Christian, I have trouble articulating how this “works,” but interestingly enough, it seems in accord with a pattern we see, and proclaims itself the unfallen example of that pattern. I live because of the sacrifice of another. I “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” in the Eucharist. Life based on the sacrificial death of another creature is so prevalent in this creation that it must somehow be part of a central theme.

I think that theme is a “Me first” twist on a Ideal of self sacrifice for the good of another. The distance between “Give” and “Take” is very small. If one examines only the transaction, where things start and where they end up, giving and taking are identical. The twist is the attitude of the participants. Taking is “what’s yours is mine”, giving is “what’s mine is yours”; almost the same, and yet how different could they be!

 So predation can perhaps be seen as a fallen and twisted remnant of a great good running through Edenic creation: Life always exist by the sacrifice of other life, but perhaps one can imagine, only just barely imagine a scene where the lamb willingly gives it’s body so that the lion can live, and the lion eats, full of wonder and humility towards this incredible being that would so lay its life down for its friends.

 Themes run through the creation, and everything bears the mark of that which (or who) made it. I think that there is a theme here that fills me with awe and wonder.

Meditation on Good Friday

Because today is Good Friday, I’ve decided to change te date and bring this post forward. It was originally written in 2007

I had been pondering a part of the creed little used in the branch of the Church I grew up in: “He descended into hell” particularly in connection with Jesus’ words from the cross “it is finished” and “Into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

As to the descent, I now find great comfort and meaning in the idea that our Lord descended as far as it is possible for a man to go in order to rescue us. If any be not rescued, it is not because they had sunk below some “crush zone” from whence no rescue was or is possible. God did not become an angel to get near us, or a Great Ruler, to lead our culture, or even an Important Person, but He became a poor man, with no place to lay His head, despised and afflicted. He did not stop there, but descended even lower to a criminal’s death, then still lower, until He had reached the very bottom of where a human soul could go, and from thence returned to Glory, leading captivity captive. He nowhere stopped short; there was no soul on whom the Light did not shine.

The other question is this: If Jesus still had the “descended into hell” to do, why did He say from the cross “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” and “It is finished”?

Perhaps it is because THAT was the moment of victory- Yes, He descended still lower, but not as a condemned soul: He descended into Hell as an invader. In attempting to drag the hero in by force, satan (in his own interpreting of the events) took advantage of the incomprehensible descent of God into the incarnation. He trapped Him by the betrayal, used the fallen nature of Judas and the compassion and truthfulness of the incarnate Jesus to dig his claws into his feet, hands, side and head;

“Now I have conquered you- now I will drag the heir down to death and below. “If I indeed cannot rule in heaven, I can rule over heaven in my own realm, from my own throne.”

Such was his vision of the events of these years, and today, this “good Friday” as his day of triumph. It was not God’s vision.

As in judo, where one uses the very force of the adversary against him, so Jesus accepted the wounds of the great enemy. He accepted the pull, and the summons. But it was not as satan expected. At the moment of triumph (and satan thought it was his own), at the moment of the Death, at the moment when it was finished, Jesus accepted the momentum with which satan drew Him, and descended deeper than death, into the kingdom of death.But satan’s force was used against him (as a judo throw), and his realm was penetrated by the King of Glory. Jesus went down, but with the victory won. He went down in triumph to lead forth all who would be rescued.

Thanks be to God.

Thoughts on the Holy Trinity:

I have long wanted to write at some length concerning a subject dear to my heart. I’ve been drawn into several discussions with Muslims, Christians and seekers that touch on the ultimate reality of God, what is He like, and why does it matter.  A couple of these conversations are here, and here. Of course, it is meaningless to say that “I worship God” if I neither know nor care who He is or what He is like. It would be like saying “I love my wife” without knowing anything about her.

 

I am referring of course to that absolutely bedrock assertion of Christians that God is triune, or the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In its fullness, it is maddeningly beyond our grasp, and yet if true, represents the core and source of all that is, seen and unseen. It is in affirmation of the Trinity that we can say “Jesus is Lord” and by it we are sundered as blasphemers by both Jew and Muslim. It is nowhere explicitly and unreservedly defined in scripture, although there is strong support. Instead, the understanding of Trinity arises as a consequence of Holy Scripture, that given what we are told about God, this must be true.

 

As we go along, I very much welcome your contribution to the discussion, and your thoughts about the issue, for or against. As will soon become apparent, I am no scholar or trained theologian, but thinking about truth is the exclusive right of neither.

 

 

SO WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “THE HOLY TRINITY” AND WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IT?

 

We see God as existing eternally, before the dawn of time. I believe this means before the creation of time, holding, to the limits of my understanding, that time is of a unity – a ‘forth dimension’ with space in describing the material universe. If time and space were not created by God, they would be either the limitless expanse co-existent with the limitless God, which devolves to pantheism (Many have taken some form of that pantheism road, but the rejection of that is outside the scope of this article.), or they would be the environment in which God dwells and operates.

 

Time and space would be preconditions upon God, and thus a deeper and more ancient reality. The true “ground of being” would be moved back from who we call “God” onto another agency, personal or impersonal. This perhaps mindless entity, the cosmos, would be the self-existent ultimate reality; by definition, the true God of which the Deity we acknowledge is only a subordinate, or a manifestation. Of course, the current understanding of physics, although ever subject to refinement and change, suggests that time and space (not merely matter, but space itself) had a definite point of origin in the “big bang”, that time has a definite direction, and will be of a fixed length.   

No, God must be extant outside of time and space. That is what I understand as “Transcendent” God, of His nature, does not inhabit the universe in the way that we do. It would be at least as accurate, probably more so, to say that the universe, all of time and space, inhabits Him, without filling Him.  

 

It is very hard to even talk of such an existence without smuggling in the idea of time. I have to slap my fingers to keep for writing “before” time; which is meaningless, because “before” is a question of sequence, of time. My chosen substitute, “outside” is not any better, because “outside” is a question of space and location. I suppose the closest I could come would be to speak of God existing “outside of time, and before space.” We are such total creatures of time and space that we are powerless to envision of an existence without them, even when we know it must be so. The only way we can proceed is to invent words like “transcendence” to describe the indescribable reality.

 

OK, what does all this have to do with the Trinity?

 

I think that there are very good reasons for understanding the source of all things, the uncreated “ground of being” as in some fashion corporate. I am going to set those reasons aside to simmer for a bit, not because they are secondary, but because I do not want to encourage the idea that I am arguing for any form whatsoever of polytheism. That is anathema both by Holy Scripture and by reason. Instead, I want to come from the wrong way ‘round, and think of what such a corporate existence would be like if it is in fact true, then come back to why I think it so.

 

 

GOD IS ONE

 

If we envision more than one “existences” we immediately envision a medium in which they exist. There must be such a medium so that we can say ‘this’ is Zeus, and ‘this’ is Hermes. If they are not all the same, there must be some way for a boundary to exist, some way to differentiate one from another. As I see it, this is the most straight-forward evidence against polytheism. Any society of polytheistic gods must of necessity be derivative to whatever is the true self existent ground of being, the environment in which they all exist. Gods under pantheism become little more than people with different forms of bodies and different powers.  A being formed of light energy instead of carbon molecules would still be a creature, no less than we are.

No, this won’t do at all. If there is to be some form of society within the Godhead, it must be as the Trinitarian formula puts it: One God, eternally existing in three (or for this point in my argument, more than one) persons, with the essence of God not divided, and the Persons not confused. God must be One. By reason as well as revelation, God is one. If there is, as I believe, some sort of plural-ness to the uncreated creator, it must be of a sort that does not contradict His unity.  

 

 

A SIDE NOTE ABOUT TENSION BETWEEN INCOMPATABLE IDEAS

 

I am treading very carefully here, because the two ideas incorporated within the doctrine of the Trinity are seemingly mutually exclusive. God is One. God is Three. Well, which is it! Declare what you really believe. It can’t be both! In my discussions with those from Islam, that seems to be exactly the take. I can’t truly believe that which I say I believe. We Trinitarians are really polytheists who lack the honesty to say what we really think.      

 

There is a huge tension between the two propositions, arising from the limits of our vision. But I take it that when two seemingly incompatible ideas both must be true, then they probably are both true; the incompatibility lies within my understanding.  Those tensions are often the repository of a truth deeper than what we can now see, and by refusing that tension, we may well miss the most important truth, as well as loosing the smaller point.

 

For instance, if I draw a picture something like this / \ and proclaim that these lines are parallel, you may well conclude that I am either a very bad draftsman, or that I have no idea of what “parallel” means, that I am a liar or a fool. If you are blindingly sympathetic and think me preternaturally wise, you may even think that your own understanding of parallel (and that of all mathematical history) is faulty, since I must by right.

 

All of these approaches are attempts to reduce the tension between the shape drawn, / \, and my assertion that they are parallel. The deeper truth which resolves the tension is that the reality which my drawing represents exists in 3 dimensions, not just the 2 on the paper. The parallel lines are receding into that third dimension like railroad tracks into the distance. If we existed in only two dimensions, and had no way to understand three, we may be totally unable to resolve that tension. But both the drawing and the idea of parallel would both still be true, as well as my status as an accurate interpreter of the drawing. By insisting on a resolution, we would have to deny the truth of something that is in fact true.

 

 

GOD IS PLURAL IN HIS ONE-NESS

 

Having established that God is (and must be) One and only One, and that tension often points to truth, I am going to turn with trepidation to the issue of plurality within that unity. In what follows, it is most important to remember that first point, the first point both in reason and the Law, that “the Lord your God is One.”   I am going to base my argument for plurality on another of the classical attributes of God: that He is complete within Himself, without need or want, and acts in accordance with his Nature without compulsion of any kind. There are other basis, both within and external to the Holy Scriptures, but for now, this will suffice.

 

We have called God the “ground of being” meaning that He is the antecedent of all things, having Himself no antecedent. Or, as the Gospel of John puts it “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made”; in Geneses, “In the beginning, God created…”   In that beginning, God already existed (smuggling that idea of sequence, and thus time again!), not needing to be created, and Himself creating all things.

 

 

OK,   WHY?

 

Why did God create? What did He, who wants for nothing, want? What did He who is perfect and complete, without need, need to do or have? What did He who is without passions desire? Why did He create?

 

A traditional and Biblical answer is that God created out of Love, that God is Love. All well and good, and correct. Let’s follow that a bit, and see where it leads. Was God love before creation, when He was the only entity in existence? If so, then love would have to be defined differently than I understand it. Can love exist in a unipolar fashion, like a magnet with only one pole? I would suspect that this ‘theoretical’ understanding of disembodied love is pretty far from the real thing. I would suspect that love requires both a lover and a beloved to be actual. One of my one ideas about God is that He is never ‘theoretical.’ All is actual, all is real. He is the “I AM” never the “I COULD BE” He is not “potential love” longing for an object onto which He could pour His love. His act of creation could not come from need for something to love.

 

If we allow for the existence of plurality within the unity of the Godhead, though, these difficulties vanish. God becomes an eternal act of love, between (in the Trinitarian formula) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and creation comes, not from need, but from overflow of love. A crude simile would be the difference between a woman desperate to have a baby so that she would have someone to love (and love her), and a couple whose love for each other overflows in fullness to create a child. Crude, but I think not inappropriate.

 

The act of creation by a God who needs nothing can only be explained by the existence of actual love between multiple persons within the unity of God.        

 

 

WHY THREE, AND NOT ANY NUMBER OF PERSONS?

 

Having established that God is One, and that He is plural within that one-ness, a “plural-unity”, Why do we say Three-in-One, and not Four or Seventeen or an infinite host?

 

When we think of Father and Son, it is almost inevitable that we think in terms of our human fathers, who may have multiple children, or even the Father of nomadic clan. This is the image which looks like polytheism and causes such a scandal in the Islamic eyes. But I don’t think that is quite what is meant.

The second person of the Trinity, the Son, has also been referred to as the Word, or the Logos. The fullness of that is deeper than I can plumb. What I get from that is that in the Son, we see the expression of the Transcendent God. That which I “beget” is of the same kind of thing that I am, it is in some sense, even in a biological sense, “me” going forth. When I write, or send out my words or my ideas, that is again “me” going forth.

 

It we imagine two sons, then neither can be the LOGOS, nor can they be co-equal with the Father. Rather, they would be co-equal with each other, and lower than the Father. This would seem to break the triune nature of the one Godhead into a polytheistic hierarchy. Or if the idea of LOGOS is maintained as from John 1, each would be a partial expression of God, one appropriate for this, and another for that. I would take that as pretty pure modalism, which the church defined pretty early as heretical.

I believe the classic articulations of the Trinity go much deeper than this, but I think this beginners version is on the same page, and I’ll stand on it until I can see further.
If Jesus Christ as the begotten Son of the Father is the expression of His fullness, how can there be another? Remember, our language is metaphorical and symbolic (it is our language that is symbolic, not the truth behind the language) God the father is not a Nomadic chieftain such as Abraham. When He has expressed himself perfectly, fully and completely, He has no other expression to give. There can be only one begotten Son.

 

In a similar fashion, there can be only one Holy Spirit of God. If in God the Father we understand the Transcendence of God, and in God the Son we understand His expression, so in the Holy Spirit we understand His imminence. The Spirit is that by which we understand God to dwell within God’s people by His gift. If I understand the western idea correctly, the Spirit eternally arises as a product of the relationship between the Father and the Son. In pharmaceuticals, whenever I take two medications, I have at least three chemicals in my body: medicine A, medicine B, and the compound AB produced by the interaction of the two. Any time two entities exist, there also exists a product of their interaction, as magnets and the magnetic field between them. I find this to be a very limited picture, but it makes sense to me as a direction in which the truth lies, not as the full truth itself. But if it is in the right direction, the Father and the Son have one relationship between them, one Spirit which is the embodiment of that relationship. There cannot be another.

 

These are very crude images of the one triune God, and are subject to much refining and correction; much needs to be said to amend the flaws in them. But even in these images, the Trinity is of necessity 3 in 1. Any extension would seem to overturn the whole idea into polytheism, and loose the idea of the One God.

 

 

SO WHAT?

 

In all the preceding thought, I have started from the definition of God as the one who creates and is Himself uncreated (the “Ground of Being” or “Prime Cause”) and that He is complete within Himself, having neither need nor want, under no compulsion except to be who He is. From these definitions I have attempted to show that He is, of necessity, One, and that as seemingly contradictory as it may be, that He is inescapably plural; that the seeming contradiction arises not from these two premises, but from the limitations of our understanding, and that our limited capacity to understand should not be made more comfortable by denying either of otherwise true propositions. If you are still with me, you may reasonably ask

“Who cares? Whether all this is right or not, it makes my head hurt. And besides, what difference does it really make?”

 

 

One of my favorite books is called “The Cruelty of Heresy” written by a retired Episcopal bishop named C. FitzSimons Allison. Through reading Bp Allison’s book, I became convinced that the truths about God are important, not just because they are true, but also because they reflect the ultimate realities about this world. These realities are not just interesting thoughts, but they are the guiding principles which should inform our lives. Indeed, if a doctrine has nothing to say about how we should live in the light of its truth, I am somewhat uneasy as to whether it is true at all.

 

This, by the way is another of the marks by which I try to understand the light of truth:

When I insert a particular idea into the story, does it just sit there by itself, or does it illumine the rest of the story?

 

And I believe the Idea of the Holy Trinity passes that test.

All through the scripture we get this idea, which seems very strange to my modern western ears, that there is some sort of unity beyond our individual identity. There is a recurring theme that tribal/familial/national/racial identity actually does matter, that we are somehow tied together. In the New Testament, we are spoken of as corporately one body. We are not just individuals, and it would be a grave mistake to think that we can “separate the essence” of who we are as a whole in order to insist on our standing as unique individuals. And yet at the same time, each of us has a choice to make. We must make it ourselves, as Rahab did at Jericho. Our fate is bound together with that of our brothers, and at the same time, our fate depends on our own choices. It is an equally grave mistake to “confuse the persons” and violate our unique identity by rolling it into the mass of humanity. How can both be true? I think it is a slight whisper, a signature mark of our Maker, you might say a characteristic shape that identifies His work, that things can be somewhat unique and plural at the same time.  

 

I’ve often wrestled with St. Paul’s statements in Romans about our being “in” Adam, or “in” Christ. I accepted it, but without understanding. How could the sin and rebellion of one, or the perfect obedience and sacrifice of the other actually affect me, other than be example? The answer seems to be in that somewhat mystical idea that Charles Williams called “co inherence” which is a thumbprint of the plural-unity of the Holy Trinity.

 

In my first marriage, before it was redeemed as my second marriage, I did not understand much of what it meant to be “one flesh” and yet two distinct persons. And yet this presents the exact same errors as when contemplating the Trinity. We think (and this was my main error)“we must be one” and so sacrifice either or both individuals into he one-ness. We “confuse the persons.”

 

Or we may support the two individuals by denying any essential unity, and loose what God has for us in marriage. We “separate the essence.” If the Holy Trinity is one, yet composed of three persons in that unity, held together not by compulsion but by mutual love, that submission does not equal subservience or inferiority, then how should we live so as to echo that back?

How should we in the church live out our Lord’s prayer “that they all should be one, even as we are One”?

 

I believe that, as like creates like, the plural unity that is the God of all creation is intending to create something of the same sort with us. In the fullness of the kingdom, the eastern religions are half right: we will all be one, but not as a drop of water becomes one with the ocean and looses itself. We will become one in the way patterned after the way that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one; in a way that glorifies our unique individuality while exulting in the kind of intimate unity that now only occurs, sometimes, in the best of marriages.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

The classic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that God is One, while comprised of three Persons, a “plural unity,” is supported by reason arising from the definition of God as the “ground of being,” that God is love, never in the abstract but always in the real, and that God is without need or compulsion. Any form of polytheism is rejected as being a truncated theology, with any individual supposed ‘gods’ merely derivative.  Given these characteristics, creation could only flow from a plural unity. This plural unity is further seen to of necessity be comprised of three and only three persons. It is acknowledged that the tension between one and three is vast, but that the tension arises from our limitations, not from the statements about God.

 

The Trinity is further seen as true based on the illumination it sheds on human relationships, on ‘original sin’ and redemption, and its pastoral role in speaking to both marriage and life within the church.

 

The challenge presented, as always, is to look to God the Son, Jesus, to see Him, and to see God the Father through Him; to do what He does as an apprentice copies his master; then under our submission to God the Holy Spirit, become who He is making us to be.

St. Patrick

In honor of the day, my favorite hymn is a translation of

 St. Patrick’s Breastplate

It is one I definitely want sung at my funeral.

 

 

I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.

Good Things and Promises

In my reading this week, I came across the story of the sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham in Genesis. In my margin, I found a note I had scribbled sometime before:

Do I trust in the promises of God,

            Or do I trust God Himself?

 Isaac represented all God had promised to Abraham about the future; Abraham had been clearly told that Isaac was the child of the promise, and was to be his heir. And now, Abraham was being asked to give all that up. In addition to all the purely human issue of a father sacrificing a child, Abraham was faced with a splitting of ways. He could deny the instruction, and hold on to the “promissory note” that Isaac was “the child of the promise” and trust that the promise could be trusted and relied on. Or he could take that promissory note, take all the promises God had made to him, take Isaac, and lay it all on the altar, and give it up as an act of worship and obedience.

He chose to trust God Himself, to value God even more than he valued the promises of God.

 

When I went to Grandma’s house, she gave me good things. Did I value Grandma because I got the good things, or were the things especially good because they came from Grandma?

 

May I too value Him who delights to give all things far above any of the good things He gives.

Amen

Pondering the Baptism of Jesus

 

This Sunday, the gospel reading was the baptism of Jesus, and was used as a springboard into a discussion of the Holy Trinity, as it is one of the places where the Trinity is most explicitly seen in scripture. As in most contemplations of the nature of God, the ramifications can be a bit of a mind-bender!

Particularly in this story, as the Father sends down the Spirit upon the Son.

 

On of the pictorial explanations of the Trinity affirms rightly that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father; while the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  None is 1/3 God, each is complete, and the Godhead is complete in each. We are not polytheists!

 

So, what does it mean that

The Fullness of God

Anointed

The Fullness of God

With

The Fullness of God

 

All present in fullness and undivided essence, yet each distinct and unconfused uniqueness.

Full of wonder!

 

(Hat tip to The Foolish Galatian for the image)

What do we mean by “The Bible is the Word of God”?

See Biblical inerrancy -what does it really mean? for a nicely done overview.

 

My comments repeated here:

My own take on the Bible as the Word of God will probably satisfy few. It is certainly not philosophically rigorous, but it has the huge advantage of being fruitful for me.
Thomas Cranmer wrote a prayer for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

Blessed Lord, which hast caused all holy Scripture to be written for our learning, grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn ,and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of Thy holy word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our savior, Jesus Christ

And it strikes, I think, very much the right note. It leaves completely to one side the question of auricular inspiration, or the “two creation stories” in Genesis; it doesn’t care about minor variances in the accounts in the Gospels, it doesn’t even get exited about whether a particular tale in the early books reflect myth (maybe imported and adapted from another ancient civilization), or things that actually happened. Not even supposed changes in the LXX or selections for the canon are disheartening. The thing that matters most, and it matters supremely, is that the Bible as I have it has been caused by God to be written and edited, and preserved as a means by which He can communicate himself to me. It may have changed in it’s passage from oral tradition to sacred text. Stories may have been adapted and merged (or again, they may NOT have been!). But if so, that process was guided as sheep by a shepherd, until the ideas expressed were the ones God intended. Scholarship may well be interested in exactly who penned what words when, and why, but strictly speaking, those questions have no bearing on the Spiritual purpose of the Bible. By whatever means He did it, these texts are collectively the way God intended them to be.

Why does it matter? Read in this light, I find the Bible a coherent, cohesive whole, with one meta-story and many supporting tales, even tales of a few dead-ends. The personality of God as lover of His creation, as a jilted wooer of an adulterous and faithless humanity, who ultimately makes a way to bridge the gap, and heal the rift, culminating in the “marriage of the Lamb” at the end of the Revelation. I can read it for my edification, and listen with the “ear of my heart” and find conviction and leading for the renewal of my mind. I don’t have to get bogged down in whether Jonah is “just a story” – if it is a story, it is a story God wants me to hear and understand.
I am a child pulled onto his father’s lap – “Let me tell you a story…”

But that requires that I have faith in the teller, At least for me, that didn’t start with the book. Reading the book in faith confirmed that faith and helps me understand it. William Whitaker, another of the English reformers, said that prayer was essential to properly understand the Bible.

But the bigger question is why read it this way? The abstract, unreligious answer is that I must have a plumb line against which to measure my thoughts. If I do not have something solid, which I hold as authoritative, my thoughts are subject only to myself, and ultimately betray themselves as circular. If I hold my own reason up as the highest authority, I ultimately drift into nonsense. The more I read the Bible, the more appropriate it seems as that source of authority against which to measure my own soul.

Blessings
-Eric

More about judgement:

I’ve run into a lot of voices, from old-line Christians to liberal Christians, to tired and wounded semi-Christians to agnostics who all have a strong reaction to the idea of damnation. 

As a new and thoughtful contribution to this continuing discussion I commend Keith Goodwin’s blog here.

http://keithgoodwin.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/salvation-and-damnation/#comments